The Law Society have announced last week, that Material Information and the new 5th edition TA6 will remain and the TA6 4th edition may continue to be used until 15th January 2025, extending the transition period.
The Law Society have responded to significant feedback from its Property section members, who have claimed to prefer a longer transition period than the three months initially planned which was due to end on the 25th of June 2024. The longer transition time is said to allow firms to adjust to the changes driven by the updated forms and the Material Information requirements.
That’s a Material Information gestation period of 9 months.
The question that Archie Courage, Managing Director of FormEvo.co.uk, a Legal Forms Provider has asked of the extension is, “is there is an expression, ‘One cannot be half pregnant’ relevant here?”
Courage continued: “Thinking of this 9 month transition period, does it not just extend the period of time Conveyancers can ‘ignore change’ surrounding MI and nothing else. No ‘Material Facts’, dare I use those words, have changed, so why not just get on and use TA6, 5th edition now?
What if the Sellers’ Solicitor provides the Seller with the TA6, 5th edition and the property is marketed with MI as per Trading Standards direction for Part A, B, C and the Buyers Solicitor is expecting/ preferring (burying the proverbial head in the sand) to use the TA6, 4th edition – then what happens? You cannot unknow what you now know, you cannot be half pregnant! From the Buyers Solicitors point of view.The Buyers solicitor may well have quoted to the Buyer, their Fees will be X, assuming the 4th edition, and yet the 5th edition raises, more enquiries?
What does one do when Fees should equal X + Y given the increased advice needed to market the property? The guidance to the Consumer, and I quote, says ‘ask your solicitor’. The answer should result in an increase in the Fee.”
The MD of Form Evo poses the question that concerns buyers solicitors- with a focus on informing the client that ‘fees quoted will have to change up as a result, and will this be accepted?’. He expresses that the TA changes could be ‘a possibility to provide increased legal fees and services’.
6 responses
Whether you agree with the extension of the matters to be included in the TA6 5th edition many would argue it has been badly drafted, and inconsistent in it’s own guidelines, that most importantly encourages a seller to make a false or misleading answer as the form fails to give an opportunity on occasions to respond ‘do not know’. This is important as at times a seller may not know but the form forces a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Simply illogical.
The form critically fails to give adequate protection to both sellers and solicitors by the lack of standard protections that a competent draftsperson would have considered fundamental, no doubt due to the lack of consultation of the profession and or suitably experienced/qualified persons that should have been expected to be included.
The impression given is this is not a consultation, but rather an explanation that the form will proceed regardless, upon the strict interpretation of TLS press release.
Whether you agree with the extension of the matters to be included in the TA6 5th edition many would argue it has been badly drafted, and inconsistent in it’s own guidelines, that most importantly encourages a seller to make a false or misleading answer as the form fails to give an opportunity on occasions to respond ‘do not know’. This is important as at times a seller may not know but the form forces a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Simply illogical.
The form critically fails to give adequate protection to both sellers and solicitors by the lack of standard protections that a competent draftsperson would have considered fundamental, no doubt due to the lack of consultation of the profession and or suitably experienced/qualified persons that should have been expected to be included.
The impression given is this is not a consultation, but rather an explanation that the form will proceed regardless, upon the strict interpretation of TLS press release.
I am seeing too many people tell Conveyancers to just get on it with it and stop causing problems. To me that shows a lack of respect to Conveyancers which I think is endemic throughout the whole process of buying and selling houses. Conveyancers are digging their heals in owing to this disrespect and who can blame us? Now, should other stakeholders wish to contribute towards liability/negligence/indemnity claims then perhaps Conveyancers would be more open. However, I would assume that no one is willing to put their neck on the line for Conveyancers.
“does it not just extend the period of time Conveyancers can ‘ignore change’ surrounding MI and nothing else. No ‘Material Facts’, dare I use those words, have changed, so why not just get on and use TA6, 5th edition now?”
Seriously?
Yes, seriously and handwrite on the paper form ‘Not Known’ as per TLS guidance on page 4. Make it work.
I am not denying the form has been poorly drafted, it has. The point I was attempting to make is Trading Standards are not going to back down and U Turn, so the liability of MI requirements are still here, and need accounting for one way or another. The current TA6 5th edition is the only recognised (accepting its poor drafting as is, version, so hand write [or digitally write] on the form, where the answer is ‘not known’ to make it work.
Whilst we wait for the response to Vote of no Confidence etc. What else can one do when TA6 4th edition does not encompass the Trading Standards inflicted and nonconsulted concept on the Conveyancing industry? whom I have 100% sympathy for. Whilst we are on the point of Conveyancing Market – is this not an opportunity to increase fees to a reasonable rate, across the board? what about a minimum value of £600, in order to account for the extra input that Trading Standards has forced into the market.
TLS failed to commercially advise, in line with TA6 5th edition, on the ‘fees reset’ opportunity to assist all. Maybe they will have the strength of character to now, tackle this absurdly low ‘Fees’ value in market?
It seems to me that the different attitudes are very clear in the article and the comments.
In the article, the MD of the form provider is focusing on possible increasing fees and a message of “get on with it” for the conveyancers.
The lawyers commenting are focused on protecting and doing the best for the client, with no mention of fees.
Rather shows the where priorities of the parties involved lie, doesn’t it?
Agreed, there is a complete lack of understanding as to what acting in the clients best interests actually mean. Such a core principle of our work is entirely disregarded by those who do not practice. Having said that, even the Law Society seems to have lost sight of that at times.